http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/images/info/facts/e-Water_availability.jpg.

Accessed December 10,

Source: Environment Canada, 2004. Water availability versus population.
Lecture 1

Introduction to water and

wastewater treatment processes

2004.
Significant dates in public water supply

97 Inhabitants in ancient Rome use about 38 gpcd

1619 New River Company first to supply each home
directly with its own water for a few hours per day
1854 John Snow establishes source of cholera
epidemic in London as a contaminated supply
well – first understanding of water and health
1873 Continuous supplies in general use in London
1900 Most cities have a water supply with service
pipes to homes

Source: Frerichs, Ralph R., 2005. John Snow. Department of Edipdemiology, School of Public Health, University
of California, Los Angeles, California. Updated January 1, 2005. Accessed January 4, 2005. http://www.ph.ucla.
edu/epi/snow.html. The map is reproduced from: Snow, John, 1855. On the Mode of Communication of Cholera.
John Churchill, London.
 Source for both images: Frerichs, Ralph R., 2005. John Snow. Department of Edipdemiology, School of Public Health, University of
California, Los Angeles, California. Updated January 1, 2005. Accessed January 4, 2005. http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow.html.
The map is reproduced from: Snow, John, 1855. On the Mode of Communication of Cholera. John Churchill, London.
700
180

600 160
U.S. total water use over time
Domestic water use (gal/cap/day)
Domestic water use (l/cap/day)

140
500
120

400
100

300 80

60
200
40

100
20

0 0
North America

South America

Sub-Saharan Africa
Central America &
Asia( excluding Middle

Europe

Oceania

High Income

United States
Developed Countries

Developing Countries

Low Income Countries

Middle East & North

Middle Income
Countries

Countries
Caribbean

Africa
East)

Source: USGS, 2004. Water Science for Schools: Trends in water use. U.S. Geological Survey,
Based on data from: World Resources Institute, 2004. EarthTrends, The Environmental Washington, D.C. May 06, 2004. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/totrendbar.html, accessed November 23,
Information Portal, Water Resources and Freshwater Ecosystems, Searchable Database, 2004. See also: Hutson, Susan S., Nancy L. Barber, Joan F. Kenny, Kristin S. Linsey, Deborah S. Lumia,
and Molly A. Maupin, 2004. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000. Circular 1268. U.S.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.cfm?theme=2. Accessed December 10,
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. May 2004. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/index.
2004. html, accessed November 23, 2004.
Source: USGS, 2004. Water Science for Schools: Trends in water use. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. May 06, 2004. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/
totrendbar.html, accessed November 23, 2004. See also: Hutson, Susan S., Nancy L. Barber, Joan F. Kenny, Kristin S. Linsey, Deborah S. Lumia, and Molly A.
Maupin, 2004. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000. Circular 1268. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. May 2004. http://water.usgs.gov/
pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/index.html, accessed November 23, 2004.

Source: USGS, 2004. Source and use of freshwater in the United States, 2000. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/summary95.html.
Last Modified: May 06, 2004. Accessed November 23, 2004.
See also: Hutson, Susan S., Nancy L. Barber, Joan F. Kenny, Kristin S. Linsey, Deborah S. Lumia, and Molly A. Maupin, 2004.

Domestic water use by state 2000

1800 400
1600 350
NEVADA
1600 350

Water Consumption (gpd/cap)

Water Consumption (l/d/cap)
1400 UTAH 300 1400 300

1200 IDAHO 1200

250
250
1000
Per capita use (l/d/cap)

Per capita use (gpd/cap)

1000 200
MAINE
US 800
200
VI 150
800 600
Average
100
150 400
600
200 50
100
400 0 0

LA County, CA
Jefferson County, AL
Berkeley, CA

Los Angeles, CA
Greenville County, SC

Lancaster County, NE

Little Rock, AR

Rapid City, SD

Santa Monica, CA
Boston, MA

Jefferson County, KS

Wyoming, MI

US average
Memphis, TN
Baltimore, MD

Las Vegas, NV

Orlando, FL
Grand Rapids, MI

Greater Peoria, IL
Hagerstown, MD
200
50

0
0
AZ

AR

ID

IN

GA

IL

IA

CA

DE

FL

AL

AK

CT

CO

HI

ME
MA

MS
MD

MN

NM
MI

MO
MT

NH

NC
ND
OH
OR
PR
SC
SD

US total
KS
KY
LA

NE
NV

NY

OK
PA

VA
TN
NJ

UT
VT
RI

VI
TX

WA
WV
WY
WI

Based on data from Hutson, Susan S., Nancy L. Barber, Joan F. Kenny, Kristin S. Linsey, Deborah S.
Lumia, and Molly A. Maupin, 2004. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000. Circular Source of data: ASCE, 1979. Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers. American Society
1268. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. May 2004. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/ of Civil Engineers, New York, New York. Table 1, pp. 21-23.
circ1268/index.html, accessed November 23, 2004.
 2200 1600

2000
1400
Water Use (gpd per dwelling unit) 1800

Water Use (gpd per dwelling unit)

1200
1600

1400 1000
Typical Maximum Day 90oF Day without Rain
1200
Typical Winter Day 800 90oF Day with Rain
1000

800 600

600
400
400
Daily Water Use Patterns,
Daily Water Use Patterns in
200 Maximum Day & Winter Day 200
R-6 Area: Maximum Day
0 & Minimum Day
12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 0
12 4 8 12 4 8 12
A.M P.M P.M
Time of Day A.M
Time of Day

Figure by MIT OCW. Figure by MIT OCW.

Adapted from: Viessman, W., Jr., and M. J. Hammer. Water Supply and Pollution Control. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education, Inc., 2005.

800 130
(gallons per day per dwelling un it)

120
700

Gallons per capita

Metered
110
Flat-rate
600 100
Water usage

500 90

Percentage of services metered

80
400
70
300 90

70
200
50
100 30

0 10

Leakage Dom estic Sprinkling Total 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920
Consumption & use of meters, Boston metropolitan district.

Data from: Linaweaver, F. P., Jr., J. C. Geyer, and J. B. Wolff, 1967. A Study of Residential Figure by MIT OCW.
Water Use, A Report Prepared for the Technical Studies Program of the Federal Housing Adapted from: Turneaure, F. E., H. L. Russell, and M. S. Nichols. Public Water

Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development. Department of Supplies: Requirements, Resources, and the Construction of Works.

Environmental Engineering Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1940.

 Diff from year avg water use (mgd)

600 1982

Min & Max temperature (oF)

120

100

80
400
60

40
200
20
0
0
1 32 53 94 125 156 187 218 248 280 311 342

Time (day of year) -200

3 0 20 40 60 80 100

Precipitation (n)
2
Avg Temperature (oF)

Diff from year avg water use (mgd)

0
1 32 53 94 125 156 187 218 248 280 311 342
600 1983
Time (day of year)
400
1800
Total water use (mgd)
200
1600

0
1400

1200
-200

1000 -400
0 31 52 93 124 155 186 217 248 279 310 341 372 403 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (day of year) Avg Temperature (oF)
Daily min-max temperature, precipitation & water use in new york city for 1982.
Deviations from annual average water use versus average daily temperature for 1982 & 1983

Figure by MIT OCW. Figure by MIT OCW.

Adapted from: Protopapas, A., S. Katchamart, and A. Platonova. "Weather effects on daily water use in New York City."
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, ASCE 5, no. 3 (July 2000): 332-338.

200
MONTHLY AVERAGE TEMPERATURE & PRECIPITATION
180 ROCKFORD, III
80
160
Average Day
Daily water use -
Average Temperature & Precipitation

Temperature (oF) 140

70 120 Maximum Day
60
50
100
80
Maximum = 181% of Av. 1940
Max. Hr.=188 x 181 = 340% Av.
40 60 Average per cap = 67.5 Gal.
30 40
20 Precipitation 180

PERCENTAGES
10 160 MADISON, WIS.
0 140
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Average Day
120
100 Maximum Day
80 Maximum = 196% of Av.
MONTHLY WATER USE
60 Max.Hr.=175 x 196 = 343% Av.
60 40
Average per cap = 117 Gal.
50 ? 180
160
Water use (mga/month)

40 140 MILWAUKEE, WIS.

Thousands

120
30 Average Day
100
80 Maximum Day
20
60 Maximum = 171% of Av.
10 40
Max.Hr.= 185 x 171 = 317% Av.
20
Average per cap = 138 Gal.
0 0
NOON

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 12 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10 12

YEAR
A.M P.M
Monthly average temperature, Precipitation, & water use in new York city for 1982 to 1991 Hourly rates of consumption.

Figure by MIT OCW. Figure by MIT OCW.

Adapted from: Protopapas, A., S. Katchamart, and A. Platonova. Adapted from: Turneaure, F. E., H. L. Russell, and M. S. Nichols.
"Weather effects on daily water use in New York City." Public Water Supplies: Requirements, Resources, and the
Construction of Works. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1940.
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, ASCE 5, no. 3 (July 2000): 332-338.
Based on U.S. Geological Survey. Estimated Use of Water in United States, Circulars 115, 398, 456, 556, 676, 765,
1001, 1004, 1081, 1200, 1268. Data for 1900 and 1924 from: Linaweaver, F. P., Jr., J. C. Geyer, and J. B. Wolff,
1967. A Study of Residential Water Use, A Report Prepared for the Technical Studies Program of the Federal Housing
Based on U.S. Geological Survey. Estimated Use of Water in United States, Circulars 115, 398,
Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development. Department of Environmental Engineering
456, 556, 676, 765, 1001, 1004, 1081, 1200, 1268.
Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

Per capita use of municipal water in United States Percent U.S. population served by municipal water supply

1000 100%

900 200
90%

800 80%

700 70%

Per capita use (gal/d/cap)

150
Per capita use (l/d/cap)

600 60%

500 50%
100
400 40%

300 30%

50
200 20%

100 10%

0 0 0%
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

1000

900 200 Surface-water drinking water plant

800 Wastewater Generation (gpd/cap)
Wastewater Generation (l/d/cap)

700 150

600 Activated carbon

Chlorine and
fluoride
500
100
400 Surface-water
supply

300
Coagulant addition
50 Flocculation Settling tank Filtration
200 and rapid mix

100

0 0
LA County, CA
Berkeley, CA

Los Angeles, CA
Greenville County, SC

Jefferson County, AL

Little Rock, AR
Boston, MA

Rapid City, SD

Santa Monica, CA
Jefferson County, KS

Wyoming, MI
Lancaster County, NE

Orlando, FL
Grand Rapids, MI

Las Vegas, NV

Greater Peoria, IL

Memphis, TN
Baltimore, MD

Hagerstown, MD

Source of data: ASCE, 1979. Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers. American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York. Table 1, pp. 21-23.
Chattahoochee Water Treatment Plant – Chemical Addition / Disinfection
Intake Structure
Alum: Promote flocculation
River Flow
Sodium Hypochlorite: Disinfection

Courtesy of Joe Lin. Used with permission. Courtesy of Joe Lin. Used with permission.

Chemical mixing Flocculation / Sedimentation

Sedimentation

Flocculation

Courtesy of Joe Lin. Used with permission. Courtesy of Joe Lin. Used with permission.
Flocculation tank Sedimentation tank (clarifier)

Sludge scraper

Courtesy of Joe Lin. Used with permission. Courtesy of Joe Lin. Used with permission.

Sedimentation tank collection troughs Filtration

Flow from sedimentation tanks

Courtesy of Joe Lin. Used with permission. Courtesy of Joe Lin. Used with permission.
 Post-Treatment Chemical Addition Ground-water drinking water treatment plants
Fluoride: To prevent tooth decay
Lime: To raise the pH Disinfection and fluoridation
Phosphoric acid: To prevent corrosion of piping in the distribution system Chlorine Fluoride

Sodium hypochlorite: To maintain disinfection residual in distribution system

Iron and manganese removal

Chlorine Fluoride

Aerator Chlorine or Contact Filter

permanganate tank

West Bridgewater, MA
Ground-water drinking water treatment plants water distribution
system

Softening
Lime
Soda ash

Chlorine Fluoride Image removed due to copyright reasons.

CO2

Aerator Mixer Flocculation Settling tank Recarbonation Filter

 Wastewater generated vs water used

Water use and wastewater (flow gpd per service)

2000
600
Water Consumption (l/d/cap) 400
1800
Wastewater Generation (l/d/cap) WATER
1600 350 WASTEWATER
1400 300
400

Rate (gpd/cap)
Rate (l/d/cap)
1200
250
1000
200
800
150
600
200
100
400

200 50

0 0

LA County, CA
Jefferson County, AL
Berkeley, CA

Los Angeles, CA
Greenville County, SC
Boston, MA

Little Rock, AR

Rapid City, SD

Santa Monica, CA
Jefferson County, KS

Lancaster County, NE

Wyoming, MI
Greater Peoria, IL
Baltimore, MD

Orlando, FL
Memphis, TN
Las Vegas, NV
Grand Rapids, MI

Hagerstown, MD
0
12 4 8 NOON 4 8
AM PM
Time of Day June 23,1961
Comparison of water use (solid line) & wastewater flow (dashed lines) on days when little sprinkling
occurred.

Source of data: ASCE, 1979. Design and Construction of Sanitary and

Figure by MIT OCW.
Storm Sewers. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New Adapted from: Viessman, W., Jr., and M. J. Hammer. Water Supply
York. Table 1, pp. 21-23.
and Pollution Control. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education, Inc., 2005.

TYPICAL DAILY HYDROGRAPH FROM TEST HOME II

5.0
Typical Domestic Water Use Total Daily Use: 245 Gal. A - Home Laundry
Peak Demand B - Dishwasher
4.0 Duration-min Gal C - Foodwaste Disposer
Other
1 5 D - Shower
5%

Water Demand - gpm

3.0 2 10 E- Bath
Kitchen 4 20

10% Toilet 15 26
2.0 60 64
flushing
Laundry
40%
15%
1.0

0
0000 0200 0400 0600 0800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Bathing
30% CC DC A B C D DE D B
C D D
Water Use
Demand rates calculated over 4-min intervals were used.

Data from: Droste, R. L., 1997. Theory and Practice of Water and Wastewater Figure by MIT OCW.
Treatment. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Adapted from: Anderson, J. S., and K. S. Watson. "Patterns of household
usage." Journal American Water Works Association 59, no. 10 (October
1967): 1228-1237.
 300 0.2
Flowrate

BOD concentration, g/m3 & BOD mass loading, kg/h

Pollutants in domestic wastewater
250
High strength Medium strength Low strength
BOD Concentration 0.15

TSS, Total suspended solids (mg/L) 120 210 400 200

Flowrate, m3/s
BOD, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (mg/L) 110 190 350

Ammonia nitrogen (mg/L as N) 12 25 45 150 0.1

Organic nitrogen (mg/L as N) 8 15 25

Total phosphorus (mg/L) 4 7 12 100

BOD Mass Loading 0.05
Oil and grease (mg/L) 50 90 100
50
Total coliform bacteria (number/100 ml) 106 – 108 107 – 109 107 - 1010

Fecal coliform bacteria (number/100 ml) 103 – 105 104 – 106 105 - 108
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 14 16 18 20 22 24

Noon
Cryptosporidium oocysts (number/100 ml) 0.1 - 1 0.1 - 10 0.1 – 100
Midnight Midnight
Giardia lamblia cysts (number/100 ml) 0.1 – 10 0.1 - 100 0.1 - 1000
Time of Day
Typical hourly variations in flow & strength of domestic wastewater.

Based on Metcalf & Eddy Inc., G. Tchobanoglous, F. L. Burton, and H. D. Stensel, editors, Figure by MIT OCW.
2003. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill, New
York. Table 3-15, pg. 186. Adapted from: G. Tchobanoglous, F. L. Burton, and H. D. Stensel.
Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. 4th ed. Metcalf &
Eddy Inc., New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2003.

Typical wastewater treatment plant Typical wastewater treatment plant

Bar Grit Primary Activated sludge Final
Chlorination
Screen Chamber settling biological treatment settling

Contact
basin
Bar Grit Primary Activated sludge Final
Chlorination
Screen Chamber settling biological treatment settling
Activated sludge recycle

Contact
basin

Activated sludge recycle

Sludge
thickening Preliminary Primary Secondary Disinfection
treatment treatment treatment

Sludge
digestion Can also have tertiary treatment to remove nutrients and other pollutants
Lynn, MA wastewater treatment plant Bar screens

Bar
screens

Grit
chambers

Bar screens Traveling screen

 Lynn, MA wastewater treatment plant Primary clarifiers

Primary
clarifiers

Primary clarifiers – sludge scrapers Primary clarifiers – effluent wier

 Lynn, MA wastewater treatment plant Activated sludge aeration tank

AST
aeration
tanks

Lynn, MA wastewater treatment plant Secondary clarifiers

Secondary
clarifiers
 Lynn, MA wastewater treatment plant Chlorine contract chambers

Chlorine
Contact
chambers

Virtual tours of wastewater plants

Englewood, Colorado –
http://www.englewoodgov.org/wwtp/
Lynn, Massachusetts –
http://members.aol.com/erikschiff/prelim.htm
Lexington, Kentucky –
http://www.lfucg.com/sewers/TBTour.asp
 LECTURE 1

INTRODUCTION TO WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT, OVERVIEW OF

WASTEWATER AND TREATMENT PROCESSES

Water supply

Slide 2 - Volumetric water use in the United States

US is in a relatively water-rich part of the world, although there are obviously
local exceptions
Slide 3 - Per capita use for domestic water supply
US is one of largest water users – using 600 l/cap/day = 160 gal/cap/day
Slide 4 – Significant events in history of water supply
Most of the world still does not have centralized water supply with connections to
individual households
According to the World Health Organization roughly 1 billion of the world’s
6 billion people do not have access to an improved water supply.
JMC, 2000. Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report. WHO and
UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation, World Health
Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund,
http://www.who.int/docstore/water_sanitation_health/Globassessment/Global2.1.htm.
Accessed January 4, 2005.
Access to water-supply services is defined as the availability of at least 20 litres
per person per day from an "improved" source within 1 kilometre of the user's
dwelling. An “improved” source is one that is likely to provide "safe" water,
such as a household connection, a borehole, etc.
JMC, 2004. The Joint Monitoring Programme : definitions. WHO and UNICEF Joint
Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation, World Health Organization and United
Nations Children’s Fund, http://www.wssinfo.org/en/122_definitions.html. Accessed January 4,
2005.
An improved water supply is defined as:
• Household connection
• Public standpipe
• Borehole
• Protected dug well
• Protected spring
• Rainwater collection
JMC, 2000. Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report. WHO and
UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation, World Health
Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund,
http://www.who.int/docstore/water_sanitation_health/Globassessment/Global2.1.htm.
Accessed January 4, 2005.
Only 48% of the world’s population is connected at the household level.
JMC, 2004. Water supply data at global level. WHO and UNICEF Joint Monitoring
Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation, World Health Organization and United Nations
Children’s Fund, http://www.wssinfo.org/en/22_wat_global.html. Accessed January 4, 2005.

Slides 5, 6, & 7 – Dr. John Snow’s analysis of cholera deaths in London in 1854.
First study to show connection between contaminated water and impaired public
health

Slides 8 & 9 - Patterns of water use

Total US water use increased steadily until 1980s, but largely due to cooling
water use for electric power
Rate of increase exceeded rate of population increase
Since 1980s water use has leveled off despite population increase
Slide 9 – increase of public water supply has been slower but unabated
Slide 10 - Sources of drinking water in US
Ratio of 3:1 surface water:ground water for overall use but heavier reliance on
ground water for public water supply
Slides 11 & 12 – Large geographical variation within US
Greater domestic water use in arid areas – mostly for landscaping
Note low use in Virgin Islands – established practice of conservation: “In this land
of fun and sun, we don’t flush for number 1”
Maine - ???
Slide 12 – large variation also holds true for cities – Las Vegas has high water
use for outdoor watering, not hotels as one might expect (Carmen Roberts,
Vegas heading for ‘dry future’. BBC News, July 29, 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4719473.stm)
Slides 13, 14, & 15 – Johns Hopkins study of water use
Classic study completed in 1960s by Johns Hopkins University
Conducted 1961-66
Continuous monitoring of water use by 41 homogenous residential areas
with 44 to 410 dwelling units and several apartment areas
Covered: 16 different water supply utilities, 11 metropolitan areas; 6
different climatic regions
Slide 13
Winter graph shows household usage – morning and early evening peaks
Summer graph shows potentially profound effect of sprinkling
Slide 14 shows summer usage with and without rainfall
Factors affecting water use:
Income – rich people use more water
Climate – more water is used in dry climates (for watering lawns)
Season – less water is used in winter than summer
Metering – metered customers used less water for watering lawns than
those on flat rates
Slide 15 shows effect of metering on water use: little effect on household use but
major effect on sprinkling
Slide 16 – Relation of water use to metering is not a new story – this graph is from
textbook dated 1940
After the change in economic systems in eastern Europe, there was concern
about how to bring wastewater treatment systems up to western standards.
Many were highly overloaded before the change, but once the authorities
started to charge for water, usage went down, wastewater went down, and
overloaded plants were no longer overloaded
Slides 17, 18, & 19 – Study of effect of weather on New York City supply
Slide 17 – use during 1982 shows fairly constant use until it gets hot – above
72ºF water use increases linearly with temperature
Slide 18 – shows same pattern in 1983

 Slide 19 – pattern is absent in 1985 – why? Mandatory water conservation

measures imposed by city
Slide 20 – pattern of daily water use has not changed appreciably over the years – curve
for 1940 shows morning and afternoon peaks in usage
Slide 21 – shows that total usage increased, at least until around 1980
Slide 22 – despite prevalence of public water supply systems, about 20 percent of the
US population is self supplied – usually by a ground-water well. This fraction has
not changed appreciably for many decades.
Slides 24-33 - Walk-through of typical water treatment process
Slides 34&35 – Ground-water systems
Slide 34a – often minimal treatment is required
Slide 34b – Ground waters often high in iron and manganese (particularly in New
England)
Removed by oxidizing to insoluble iron oxide (rust) or manganese oxide,
which precipitate and can be removed by filtration
If not removed in treatment plant, iron and manganese precipitate in
distribution system and cause staining of laundry, fixtures, etc.
Slide 35 – Deep, old ground waters are often highly mineralized and “hard” (high
concentrations of Ca and Mg)
Water is softened by adding lime (Ca(OH)2) and soda ash (Na2CO3)
Recarbonation removes excess lime and prevents scaling of equipment
and pipes
Slide 36 – Water distribution systems brings treated water to homes and businesses –
not covered in this course

Wastewater

Slides 37 and 38 – water supply begets wastewater generation, usually with a pretty
close correlation
Slide 37 – Exceptions are:
water supply > wastewater when sprinkling use is great (e.g., Las Vegas, Los
Angeles) and/or exfiltration from sewers is high
water supply < wastewater when infiltration into sewers is high (perhaps
Greenville County?)
Slide 38 – Johns Hopkins study confirms this on day with little sprinkling
Slide 39 – Most water used in the household becomes wastewater via various routes
Consumption (drinking, cooking) is pretty negligible
Toilets use the most, hence low-flow toilets are a good water conservation
measure
Slide 40 – Daily flow curves are averages over many households – the flow from
individual household is very episodic
Under some circumstances, flow from individual homes can be coordinated:
wastewater treatment plant workers in New York City claim to be able to tell
the popularity of TV shows by the wastewater surge seen during commercials
Slide 41 – Wastewater quality

BOD, TSS – for short-term effect on receiving water

 N, P – for long-term effect (eutrophication) on receiving water

Oil and grease – for short-term effect
Pathogens – for effects on human health
Slide 42 – Variation in flow also causes variation in strength of wastewater – Why?
At low flow, solids settle, reducing BOD concentration
At high flow, solids get scoured from pipes, increasing BOD concentration
Slides 43-49 – Walk-through of typical wastewater treatment process
Slide 50 – Virtual tours of WWTPs: (really should be “scratch and sniff”)
Englewood, Colorado – http://www.englewoodgov.org/wwtp/
Lynn, Massachusetts – http://members.aol.com/erikschiff/prelim.htm
Lexington, Kentucky – http://www.lfucg.com/sewers/TBTour.asp